Definitely a conservative perspective on events and news, be sure to check out the permanent resource section on the right. It contains a link to the 85 Federalist Papers. So, when you wonder what the founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution, you can read it in their own words.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

When my children were younger, my family, like many other American families faced a dilemma. What to do with the offspring during working hours. After the 6 week leave of absence from her job, the little Mrs. and I realized that we would not be able to just toss the bundle of joy into the bassinet for the day while we both of us left for our money earning activities. The little bundle of joy, Deborah, required pretty consistent attention. Feedings, changing, play time, what have you was something which was not going to go away simply because we needed to earn a living. The dilemma was the fact that day care in a government approved facility was more expensive than the money my wife earned at her job. Day care it seems, was in the government's view anyhow, something which should only be available to those who earned a hell of a lot of money. At the same time, our actual household expenses increased dramatically, and we needed the second income. We searched for an alternative solution.

That alternative solution was the same one found by millions of American families. We hired a private babysitter, one who did not get herself on the list of government approved day cares. Kathleen, was good with children, ran a tight ship, and actually was well liked by our kids. She was much more reasonable in price, and held flexible hours, something the government approved day cares did not. Over the years, Kathleen became part of the family. All in all, the bad government policy led to what bad government policies always lead to, harm to those the policy is intended to help, and a quasi black market. So, in an effort to further destroy the dreams of its citizens, the state of California has a plan.

How will parents react when they find out they will be expected to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time for…babysitters? Dinner and a movie night may soon become much more complicated.Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk.

How much more abuse will the good people of California take from their Democrat Politicians? The bottom line for you folks living on the Left Coast is this, dream to get ahead in this life at your own peril. The State has issued a decree that children are now something for the well to do only. Those people you have elected to office on the laughable premise that they cared for the little guy, have just taken a giant step to destroy the little guy. Those private babysitters were all little guy entrepreneurs, running at home businesses. They will be effectively shut down by this. The Democrats will no doubt tout the fact that they are protecting them by granting them perks, but those perks will only appear if people continue to hire them, which they will in no way be able to do. The people hiring the babysitters will once again be left with children, and diminished incomes, just at a point in life when they need increased incomes. Thank you Democrats!

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

For the last couple of years, one of my favorite daily features has been at HotAir.com. It is a daily posting by Ed Morrisey called Obamateurism of the day. Yesterday's example proves my point about government regulation almost perfectly. For a while now, the Tea Party/Socialist debate has been reported as being about taxes. I must tell you that I believe this to be a secondary problem for our economy. While important, and far too complicated, It is the over zealous culture of regulation that is taking the lead position on the destruction of our economy and culture. You can read the Morrisey piece by clicking here. If you don't wish to, I'll summarize it for you. During his Midwest tax payer funded family preparation for vacation campaign bus tour, President Obama spoke to some farmers in Southern Illinois. A concerned farmer, frustrated with the government's full out assault upon his business asked about the latest asinine regulation rumored to be coming down the pike. The rumor was that farmers, will be required to attain CDL's to operate their farming machinery. The President's response was recorded in the following video.

After listening to the answer, a reporter for Politico, which by the way is as left leaning an organization as there is, took the President's advice and called the appropriate authorities. That one phone call led to a two day journey through the very depths of bureaucracy land. Bounced from one governmental agency to another on both the Federal and State levels led to a sense of frustration for a reporter who had no actual skin in the game, and yielded not a single definitive answer. Just imagine the frustration level for someone who's livelihood depended on the answer.

We have indeed reached a surreal point in America my friends. The good news for the farmer, and those of us wishing to buy groceries at an affordable price, is that with a bevy of regulation so thick that our overlords are no longer capable keeping up with all of them, he may very well be able to operate his machinery for at least a little while before someone in the government realizes that he is indeed in violation of rule 12.1647/sj75.prc12.578/jx/b. On the other hand, the fine may be the amputation of his right arm and confiscation of half his land. Candidate Obama campaigned on a platform of being a pragmatist, and depending on what crowd he was speaking to at the time, even managed to sound as though he were well to the right of John McCain. As President, he has promised to put an end to cumbersome regulations, which he admitted to having the knowledge were choking our economy. During his last State of The Union Address, he pledged to roll back over burdensome regulations, and pledged to not increase upon them. Since that time, he and his executive branch team have starred in the upcoming video, regulators gone wild. Putting aside for the moment the surreal optics of 9 year old children across the country being busted in a series of lemonade stand stings, (a great example by the way of teaching children the values of self reliance and hard work,) we now live in a society where over half of us need some form of government permission to work, and where hair dressers require more class time than medical doctors. These regulations are doing much more damage to our economy than the tax code, and as the above video shows, it is affecting every industry. It is far too easy to point to the chosen corporations selected for purely demagogic reasons as deserving of punishment for having provided too much benefit to their fellow citizens. When it is your industry or job however, it stings just a little more. In the end, we all pay for it.

Just one more thought. Late last week, the Holder Justice Department raided Gibson Guitars for using rosewood on their fretboards. The reason for the raid was not given, as Gibson actually was not in violation of any U.S. laws, that anyone was able to determine. This was the 3rd time in 2 years Gibson has been raided for the rosewood. Since Michelle Obama gave a Gibson Guitar as a Present to the wife of the French President, she is also guilty of felonious behavior should Gibson be guilty of anything. Teams of legal analysts should be done researching whether or not Gibson is guilty of violating any government regulations by the time the Obama's leave Washington permanently, in January of 2013.

Monday, August 29, 2011

About a week ago, the daughter of a friend got married. The priest performing the ceremony imparted this little pearl of wisdom upon the crowd of well wishers. All stories are true, and some actually happened. For a member of the clergy, lesson by allegory is a perfectly acceptable way to impart a lesson. Their message is inspired by a higher power, something not of this Earth. For the rest of us, the standard is a little more strict. It is for this reason why some of us on the political right have referred to the man made global warming belief system as a religion. It's proponents have operated for years on the premise that even if the specifics of their story of a falling sky were not truthful, then the more vague concepts of a possibly dying Earth were certainly something to be feared. Please don't misunderstand me, I do agree that we should be using our natural resources as efficiently as possible. I agree that every effort to reasonably protect our environment should be taken, and that further, we should make a continuing effort to clean up after ourselves. I grew up in the Ohio River Valley, and I remember when certain Chemical Companies would illegally dump Carbon Tetra Chloride into the river and what a pain it was to not be able to drink water or shower for 48 hours afterward. That being said, the pendulum is capable of swinging way too far in the other direction also. So, without further ado, please enjoy an example of the pendulum swinging too far in that direction. The star of the video is Al Gore, or by his assigned nick name, "Man Bear Pig." (This is in reference to the comedic genius of, "South Park.")

This video is good news for those of us on the side of reason. When the political left is losing the argument, the last ditch effort to win the day for them is the tried and true tactic of leveling the ultimate in ad hominem attacks, calling us racists. The logical gymnastics performed by Al Gore to equate people who do not agree with man made global warming with the racists of the Jim Crow South is nothing short of Olympic caliber. Bear in mind, this interview has taken place after the leak of emails from East Anglia in which all of the top, "climate scientists," were caught red handed conspiring to hide a decade and a half of declining temperatures, hiding a period of warming temperatures which occurred during the medieval period, downplay scientific experimentation which actually disproved their theory, downplay problems in their computer modeling, to rig temperature stations to collect increasing temperatures by placing thermometers next to heavy machinery, on asphalt, and to exclude all temperature stations north of the 39th parallel. Also, keep in mind that this video was made a full day after the Cern Super Collider proved that that big yellow thing in the sky during the day time has more to do with our temperatures and weather than anything man is able to accomplish. In an experiment last week, the Heliocentric theory was proven true. The thing about the Cern Super Collider is, that being a machine, it is not capable of racism.

The global warming theory has other problems as well. This is one which its proponents have never answered, or even attempted to address, out side of calling us racists that is. Feedback, which is a system's continuation of a reaction. For the global warming theory to be true, their computer modeling depends on something called positive feedback, and for this feedback to be on an order of magnitude which would be simply astounding. In point of fact, the only place in our universe where positive feedback occurs, that we know of, is in nuclear reactions. And yet, here we are, assigning a coefficient of positive feedback to our global warming model on an order of magnitude which dwarfs the number generally found in even the most rapidly deteriorating fissionable material. No explanation for this assumption has ever been explained, only a charge of denial, and a comparison to some evil of the past.

My point is of course well beyond the debate over whether or not the, "science is settled." My point is whether or not it makes sense to continue to allow the EPA to cripple our free market system based on something which has been proven to be false. Preventing our business community from poisoning us with known toxins is one thing, and something by the way which the free market system does a much better job of doing than any central planning committee has ever done. Making that community react to a completely manufactured threat is something else entirely. The leftist vision of life being cleaner without technology is simply wrong. During medieval periods, people lived in their own waste. Perfumes were used to mask odors of filth, which by the way came as much from the people of the time. Our life style today is much cleaner, and indeed much better for the environment. This has been reflected in our life expectancy, which as a society has increased from the mid 30's to the mid 80's. Yes, it is true that cancer rates have increased since medieval times, but that is a function of people living long enough to develop cancer, rather than the supposed spoiling of our environment. Real economic hardship is beginning to occur due to the direction laid down by the environmental movement. It is time to start ignoring these lunatics. We can begin this process of correction in November of 2012.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

This is a curious splitting point between political ideologies. There was a time, not so long ago, when the members of the academic community that taught in the hard sciences and math departments were overwhelmingly conservatives. This one issue has changed that dynamic. Many scientists have moved to the left side of the aisle over this singular issue. Their overall belief system is still supportive of free markets and strong national defense, but like most people, they are willing to excuse what they perceive as small faults in a candidate in order to support what they hold as a central issue for them personally. For me, I consider this to be a small national issue, since it is something which our Constitution allows for local determination of a direction. In support of that concept, every school board in the country so far that has bought and used the Pandas and People text, has been replaced during the next possible election. Our Constitutional form of government works, and that is the point.

Friday, August 26, 2011

In listening to the political rhetoric traveling across the airways, the only piece of the debate which ever gets attention seems to be about taxation. What is fair and how much are the only points contested by the talking heads, and the invited, "expert," pundits. For the purposes of job creation, and economic health, the most important aspect of the conversation is missed almost entirely. It's not just about the taxes, but also about the regulation, and baby, we got plenty of that, with more planned to arrive. The effects of regulation is impossible to measure. This is one thing Speaker Boehner got completely wrong in his letter to the President. He estimated a cost in the newest round of planned regulations to be about $2 Billion per year, but this is only a beginning point. That might be the cost of compliance immediately, but those are far from the only ill effects these 219 new parasites on our economic activity will have. As businesses react to this newest assault on the free enterprise system, they will hire less employees, who will be paying far less in taxes. Current employees will be laid off, or downsized. Future innovation will be stifled. Consider this, would the wright brothers have been able to invent an airplane in today's environment? We have already taken Edison's invention and made it illegal to produce and market.

It is not as if the President is oblivious to this purposeful stagnation of our economy either. During his latest State of the Union Address, and indeed during all of his SOTU Addresses, he claimed that he would work tirelessly, and make one of his top priorities eliminating over burdensome regulations, which were serving only to stunt our economic growth. So of course, during the past year, the Obama Administration has enacted, without the consent of Congress 191 new executive regulations. The Obama Administration plans on placing 219 new ones this year. These are on top of the regulations included in the Health Care monstrosity and the Dodd Frank assault on our entire financial system. The latter is a reform by the way which was passed as a reaction to the financial meltdown of 2008, and will do not a single thing to alleviate the root causes of the mortgage crisis. The root causes of the meltdown, Fannie and Freddie are exempt from the regulation and indeed any scrutiny. Like most governmental promises to protect the masses from the, "big guy," it actually punishes any small businesses in favor of granting competitive protections to the very big corporations which have been shoved into our faces as the evil we are supposed to hate. The Dodd Frank bill was actually written by the Obama team members who were on the board of Goldman Sachs, hardly a collection of small business entrepreneurs.

Over the last 2 3/4 years, our economy has been brought to its knees. 10 oil rigs have left the gulf for more friendly waters. They have taken thousands of high paying jobs with them. The result will also be higher fuel costs for businesses who use oil to produce their goods and services, which will also make the situation worse. Consequently, tax cuts won't do squat for us anymore. A change of leadership will. We, now more than ever need a person in the White House who understands the principles of the Free Market System, and will have the political courage to adhere to them. We need to roll back the damage inflicted upon us by the sour little man we hired in November of 2008.

One of the hot topics, so to speak, in the global warming debate is allocating responsibility for 20th century warming between natural and man-made effects. This is harder than one might imagine — after all, no one’s thermometer has two readings, one for “natural” and one for “man-made.” This week, from CERN in Geneva, comes an important new study in this debate.
Global warming skeptics argue that only a portion, possibly a small portion, of recent warming is due to man-made CO2 and greenhouse gasses. Climate alarmists have, in turn, argued that all of 20th century warming, and more, was due to anthropogenic effects (if the “and more” is confusing, it means that some scientists believe that certain man-made and natural cooling effects actually reduced man-made warming below what it might have been.)

Much of the debate revolves around the role of the sun, and though holding opposing positions, both skeptics and alarmists have had good points in the debate. Skeptics have argued that it is absurd to downplay the role of the sun, as it is the energy source driving the entire climate system. Michael Mann notwithstanding, there is good evidence that unusually cold periods have been recorded in times of reduced solar activity, and that the warming of the second half of the 20th century has coincided with a series of unusually strong solar cycles.

Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous — that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation. The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence. When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays. This is fairly well understood. But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.

With each day now, another piece of the hysterical global warming argument is destroyed. Yet, here we are, entertaining politicians who are telling us that we should accept their destruction of our economic well being based on saving something that hardly notices we are here, namely our planet. We are spending ourselves into a debt riddled oblivion in order to subsidize the completely useless green jobs scam. Thomas Edison's invention has been made illegal, I can't buy the toilet of my choice, coupled of course with the government's bankrupting of the nation's energy producers and pushing cars even my grandmother would find ridiculous, has all been made possible through wasteful subsidy programs designed to socially engineer our collective, (pun intended,) behavior. The reason of course has almost nothing to do with any actual environmental concerns. Like all useful idiots, the truly stupid liberal activists have found themselves in the all too familiar position of being used as tools by Socialists who view themselves as ruling class elites, who by the way know what is best for us, better than we.

So, what would the scientific community have to say about the results of the experiment with the full use of their professional ethics and superior integrity?

About a month ago, before the study results had been made public, the skeptic camp experienced a “dog that didn’t bark” moment when the director of CERN asked that his scientists (incredibly) refrain from drawing any public conclusions from the study, saying “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them.” Skeptics, including me, guessed that this meant the data was tending to support the Svensmark hypothesis. After all, the climate community has no problem drawing alarmist conclusions from the thinnest of data. Every climate scientist seems to have his or her own full-time PR agent. If they were explicitly avoiding public comment, and in fact telling scientists to effectively not do their job and draw no conclusions from the data, then the results must be threatening to the mainstream global warming community.

Get that? No need to let the public in on the fact that we just disproved the whole man made global warming thing, just keep that to yourselves fellows, and allow us to keep milking the suckers for more funding.

Just to put the exclamation on the point of the ecology movement being taken over by Socialists decades ago, enjoy Senator Rand Paul getting one of those Socialists, Ms. Hogan, an Obama appointee to the EPA, to publicly admit the Marxist agenda in the name of saving the planet. Money quote from Ms. Hogan, at 4:05 of the video, she has the audacity to instruct Senator Paul as to what he really wants, or more specifically what it is he should really want. For your information tootsie, I don't just want light, I want light in the form of a 50 cent bulb rather than in the form of a $2.50 bulb. That $2.50 bulb by the way, requires a Hasmat Team for proper disposal should one break in your home. My children, between the 4 of them, must have broken about 3 dozen light bulbs over the years.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

It looks like the end of the line for the former head of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Make no mistake about it though, while Qaddafi's placement on the UNHRC was more of a statement about the UN and what it has become, he will always be remembered as the clinically insane exporter of state sponsored terrorism that he truly was. The video of President Jimmy Carter's brother Billy dancing like an idiot with his Libyan BFF's will always be a memory which comes to mind when I think of liberal foreign policy agendas. Qaddafi is one evil dude, make no mistake about it. The only surviving PLO terrorist who perpetrated the 1972 kidnapping of the Israeli athletes found a welcome home in Libya, and is treated as a national hero there. The Lockerbie bomber is there, after the easily fooled Scottish released him on the idiotic notion that he was terminally ill. (Apparently there are no rules against the Scottish Medical Practitioners working in a drunken stupor.) He actively attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, and promised to use them for the express purpose of destroying Israel. he sponsored terrorist acts against the United States tirelessly, and indeed used his oil money almost exclusively for the purpose of arming some of the world's most lethal thugs. By and large, he needed to go. The only problem of course is what did we spend our, as we just learned not limitless, tax dollars on to replace him.

There are many people who are perpetually under the delusion that if one evil dictator is replaced, that will mean an automatic improvement in the world. While in many circumstances this may be true, it is not always true. In the case of Libya, it is definitely not true. We have replaced Qaddafi with the Muslim Brotherhood. Just to get us all on the same page, the Muslim Brotherhood is a group made up of smaller constituent groups with one singular purpose. That purpose is to establish a global caliphate in the word which submits all remaining life on Earth to Sharia Law, and Islamic worship. One of the Muslim Brotherhood's constituent groups, Al Qaeda, flew jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and into a field in Pennsylvania in September of 2001. Another of the Brotherhood's constituent groups, CAIR, has infected our nation's legal system by filing junk law suits against anyone who exercised their First Amendment rights by noticing out loud any ties between Islamic terrorism and Islam itself. Another of it's constituent groups, Hamas, has taken Billions of Dollars from the U.N. in the form of Unicef donations and used those funds to launch an endless barrage of rockets and mortars against Israeli school children. The Holy Land Foundation was also one of theirs, as were unindicted co-conspirators ISNA, MSA, and of course CAIR. The Brotherhood, far from a normal political party, as we have been assured by the, either clueless or purposefully dishonest, Obama Administration, has far more nefarious purposes and goals in mind for mankind. In short, for better or worse, we have replaced an evil thug with something far worse, and far more evil.

I am not suggesting that we shed tears for Moamar Qaddafi. I am not sorry to see him go. I believe however that it was no where near our business, nor anywhere near our best interests, to oust him in favor of whom we backed. When we stood as a country 10 years ago and pledged that we would never forget, did any of us believe then that we would be fighting along side those who attacked us on that day? In your wildest nightmares, would you have believed that day would come within the same decade? What has happened in the Middle East over the past year is a direct result of the most hideous aspects of the liberal foreign policy agenda run amok. What has been labeled the, "Arab Spring," is an unmitigated disaster which will make Iran of 1978 seem like the good ole days we should be hearkening back to. From 1977 through 1981, American foreign policy was highlighted by our President traveling the globe apologizing for American strength, spouting useless platitudes, and using moral equivalence as a compass to determine our responses to anything. The result was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, political assassinations in Egypt and Jordan, and of course the replacement of the Shaw of Iran with his greatly improved replacements, the thuggish genocidal leaders who run the show today. Today, we have a President who is following the exact same foreign policy agenda as Jimmy Carter, and shockingly, the results have been the same. The only difference is that this year, the results have been somewhat magnified. the problems born in Iran in 1978 are still causing us grief today, 33 years later. Just think of what the implications will be 33 years from now, with an even more thuggish, and even more genocidal group of rulers in charge in Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, Libya, and where ever else Obama decides to allow to slip into oblivion next. We may not be able to afford the incompetence of Barack Obama for 4 more months, let alone 4 more years.

Monday, August 22, 2011

The Friday news dump is always good for a laugh. The dump, these days anyhow, is used to report news on Friday between 4 and 5 to the White House press corps, with the belief that it is really too late to be given adequate coverage over the weekend. The hope is that the bad news will become too old to talk about by Monday morning. It is also the time the White House floats as trial balloons, some of their memes. Sometimes, the memes are just plainly funny. On Friday, for weekend percolation, the White House decided that the talking point should be floated that Barack Obama has in fact taken less vacation than George W. Bush at this point in Bush's Presidency. 60 hours later, 61% of Americans are still giggling. To reach this farcical conclusion, several steps of horrendous logic must be followed, so bear with me.

What constitutes a vacation day? When congress is not is session, there is very little a President can work on in terms of legislative action. Sure, a President can research, work out his own policy initiatives, develop his own agenda and such, but Congressmen and Senators are not in town to hold counsel with. During these times, President George W. Bush moved his office to his ranch in Crawford, Texas. There literally was nothing he could not do in Crawford that he was also able to do in Washington. Yet, each time he went, it was reported as a vacation. The liberal bias in the media was perhaps on display here, as it was anywhere. There was a continuous whining for 8 solid years as to how much vacation the President was taking. Yet today, when President Obama is photographed on a bicycle, playing golf, enjoying a day of sailing on the open sea, playing basketball with NBA greats, or enjoying an evening with the tops in Rock and Roll talent, the political left assured us that now that one of their own occupies the White House, the job is suddenly so hard that we are cruel for begrudging the chief executive of this great nation his well deserved time away.

Please allow me to disclose something. Those of you who know me from the Blogmocracy forum know that I am all in favor of President Obama taking just as much time off as we can get him to take. When he is not doing his job, he will not be able to inflict his maximum damage upon the country. As a matter of fact, I have suggested on numerous occasions the concept of starting an Obama Golf Foundation to take up charitable collections to see the President golfing at least 54 holes a day. Presidents, in general, are never truly able to escape the responsibility of their job. This was true for President Bush as well, and the hypocrisy goes both ways, but it is far more prevalent on the Left. If only because of the dishonest side by side comparison offered up.

Now, let's at least acknowledge the strange optics of the current POTUS. When he arrived in office, he told us that his first priority would be to, "get us all working again." With each manufactured crisis, and the determination to not allow any of them to go to waste, he has successfully increased the power of the Executive Branch. After each event and legislative effort, he has told us that his focus would now turn to the important function of jobs. His laser like efforts have been redirected to the economy about 15 times during his Presidency. Yet, here we are, some 950 days later, and we are still waiting for that, "jobs," program. Of course, give the fact that President Obama has not the slightest clue as to what does help create jobs in this country, or how a vibrant economy works, perhaps we are better off with his attentions elsewhere. He has stated that solving our economic woes was the first thing he thinks about in the morning, and the last thing he thinks about at night. Unfortunately, he never said anything about the remainder of his time awake, when he is actually working. It is a curious visual message to give the country, when about a quarter of the available workforce is without work, your jobs plan will be worked on after 11 days of fun in the sun. That fun in the sun by the way, after telling the rest of America to take, "staycations," is in one of the most elite resorts in the world. While traveling distances as short as 150 miles in Air Force One, a mode of transportation which takes $200,000 per hour to operate, he tells people concerned with gas prices to blow super big bucks on hybrid vehicles. While carping about the evils of money in politics, he gives fund raiser campaign speeches at $40,000 a plate dinners. While lecturing me, and the rest of the conservative movement in the country about our need to adopt a more civil tone, he calls us unreasonable fiscal terrorists who are purposefully obstructing him from completing his vision for America, thereby preventing the current economic downturn from getting better. (A side note about the last point. Political debate is not a symptom of a failure of Democracy, but evidence that Democracy is working. How one side refusing to abandon their ideals became synonymous with terrorism is beyond me. Our founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances precisely so that no one man could succeed in destroying the republic.)

In a nut shell, don't tell me how hard Barack Obama is in fact working on my behalf. The bottom line is that I don't really care. I consider myself more of a results kind of guy. While the whole problem of the economy and whatever other ills we may be suffering might possibly be the fault of those who preceded him, the fact still remains that it was his job to solve these problems. His policies have not done so, but have in fact only served to make them worse. In no other job in the world, would any one be allowed to be spinning the I inherited this mess excuse anywhere beyond 6 months. As another point, Obama inherited nothing, he actively campaigned for the job, on the premise that he knew how to fix the, "worst economy since the depression."

Friday, August 19, 2011

Do you remember the other day, when I made fun of the Left's favorite economist, Paul Krugman, for suggesting in a serious manner that we should get ready for space aliens as a means to solve our economic problems? If you do not, please play the video in order to refresh your memory.

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim…

The authors warn that extraterrestrials may be wary of civilisations that expand very rapidly, as these may be prone to destroy other life as they grow, just as humans have pushed species to extinction on Earth. In the most extreme scenario, aliens might choose to destroy humanity to protect other civilisations.

“A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilisation may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand. Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilisational expansion could be detected by an ETI because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions,” the report states.

“Green” aliens might object to the environmental damage humans have caused on Earth and wipe us out to save the planet. “These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets,” the authors write.

As noted by the author in his posting, this silliness was not authored by Nasa, but by a Nasa affiliated, "scientist." So, this is what the global warming side is left with now. Space aliens are coming to kill us because I did not buy a Chevy Volt. Is this theme going to be played out in the upcoming Presidential election? I hope so. I can't wait for Barack Obama to run ads showing Space Aliens upset with Steel Plants in America sitting idle, because they might one day again be used to create Sulfur Dioxide, and of course that useless bye product, steel. Will we see commercials with an alien shedding a single tear down his cheek as someone drives a Hummer to work in a coal burning electric power plant?

I guess for me, what gets me most about this kind of crap is that it actually finds traction as serious argumentation. It is hard to hold a national debate with someone who posits this type of idiocy in a serious manner. About a decade ago, when watching court T.V., the people pontificating about the O.J. trial floated as a joke that Judge Ito might as well allow the space aliens did this defense. It is somewhat disconcerting to me to know that this is no longer considered a joke, but a serious argument. This is indeed a great day for America my friends.

In the spirit of liberal debate tactics, here is a list of 5 questions, just as valid about our impending alien invasion.

1) What if the aliens are coming here to buy our muscle cars, like Corvettes, and Mustangs?
2) What if the aliens in fact breathe Carbon Dioxide and view our efforts to limit this gas in our atmosphere as a rude gesture?
3) Does the fact that the aliens are coming to kill us over green house gasses mean that they were O.K. with nuclear detonation?
4) If the aliens had the technology to travel here from their own planet, and they considered Carbon Dioxide to be worthy of destroying us over, why don't they just sell us their planet sized atmospheric Carbon Dioxide air scrubbers, (Lithium Hydroxide), which we ourselves invented for use on the various space craft we have sent to the moon and lower Earth orbit?
5) If they are coming to kill us for this, why be so shy about it for the century or so we've had an industrial capability? Why not show up when the very first internal combustion engine was fired up and warn us of the galactic no-no?

The truly scary part for me is this. About half of our country agrees with these imbeciles.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

The liberal world may one day realize that we free marketeers are not all about the tax code and not paying anything at all in taxes. Listening to an endless stream of hate the rich class warfare and hyperbole over GE not paying any taxes at all, it is tough sometimes to avoid having this argument over what is a fair and equitable way to divide up our national expenses on the terms of the debate's loudest participants. Millionaires and Billionaires aren't making the sacrifices that the rest of America is being forced to make, blah, blah, blah. So here we are, in a point in our history where those who are having their incomes confiscated to pay for a party which we can not afford, after having protested that we can not afford that party, and after having been denigrated as cold hearted evil demons for having noted that the party was beyond our means to afford, those who are on the receiving end of bag of promised goodies are suddenly screeching about shared sacrifice and the wealthy not paying their fair share. Perfectly timed, as if it were a coincidence, with the President's rust belt wealth redistribution tour, Warren Buffett has once again loaned his voice to the cause of Socialism. Warren's intellectual dishonesty makes me want to vomit.

First of all, one of the dirty little secrets of our tax code is that wealth in this country is not taxed. Income is taxed. The wealthy, can avoid paying taxes entirely, by not having an income to tax. So when Warren, who's salary for managing Berkshire Hathaway is $1, whines about paying an effective rate less than the secretary who assists him in running his company, he is not, in any possible manner, being honest. Let's take a peek at the intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Warren Buffett.

The double tax oversight. The Berkshire Hathaway magnate makes much of the fact that he paid only 17.4% of his income in taxes, which he considers unfair when salaried workers often pay more. But Mr. Buffett makes most of his income from his investments, in particular from dividends and capital gains that are taxed at a rate of 15%.

What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%.

The charity loophole. For billionaires like Mr. Buffett, the single most important deduction in the tax code is for charitable giving. Middle-class earners can't give nearly as much money away to reduce their overall tax burden. Yet we don't hear Mr. Buffett calling for the elimination of that deduction in the name of fairness.

Mr. Buffett has also already sheltered the bulk of his fortune from federal taxes by putting them into a foundation that will give the money away. That's an act of generosity, but if the government's purposes are so vital, why doesn't he simply give the money to the IRS?

Rebecca Quick of CNBC put that question to Mr. Buffett in 2007. His answer: "Well, that's a choice and it's an option . . . If I had to give it to a single individual, or make some young Buffett a multibillionaire, or give it to the government, I'd absolutely give it to the government. I think that on balance the Gates Foundation, my daughter's foundation, my two sons' foundations will do a better job with lower administrative costs and better selection of beneficiaries than the government."

Mr. Buffett is no doubt right about the relative efficiency of private donors, but should billionaire philanthropists get such a large tax preference? Another case of fairness?

Something else that the article missed entirely, but it should highlight the hypocritical nature of the Buffetts of the world quite nicely. Through an irrevocable trust coupled with life insurance, Warren would be able to lower his income to zero, while actually making a nice profit on the donation. It is a strategy for which real wealth is needed. Warren has something that most Americans do not have, and that is a huge asset base. Warren has a talented team of advisers, and I am willing to bet that they have told him of this strategy. If ownership of a permanent insurance policy is gifted to an irrevocable trust, with a charity being named as beneficiary, the donor is allowed to take a deduction for the face value of the policy in the year that such a donation is made. I am not privy to Warren's tax information, (since he is out there advocating that I pay more, I feel comfortable in calling him Warren,) so this example is merely hypothetical. Let's say Warren takes out a VUL for $1 Million. He gifts it to an irrevocable trust and names the national association to fight depression amongst Socialist politicians. Since he will not ever be spending the money himself, he is not worried about the rules of Modified Endowment Contracts, imposed because of a tax dodge utilized by Ted Kennedy. He funds the policy with a one time investment of $100,000. That cash value, even at Warren's age would be sufficient to keep the policy alive while requiring no further payment. Warren would then be able to declare a $1 Million donation to the a fore mentioned worthy charity which would net him a $172,000 savings in his tax bill at the end of the year. Warren would have just made a $72,000 profit on the current tax code, something his asset base allows him to do. This strategy is only viable for a select few individuals in our society, all of whom are claiming that they want income taxation rates raised.

So, here is an open challenge to Warren Buffett. Open up your tax returns for public scrutiny, and let us see the advantages in your current taxation being employed by your team of specialists. Write a check to the federal government in the amount you believe you are under paying, which the IRS welcomes by the way, and then we will take you seriously. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a blow hard clown.

On another note, I agree that something is rotten in Denmark that GE has paid nothing in taxes. The reason is that the liberals designed the system and loopholes which allowed GE to get away with this. Those wonderful tax credits for selling the CFL bulbs, the tax credits for making the windmills, the waiver for the Obamacare law that the rest of us must pay for, etc., have made this possible. So when you liberals whine about how we should hate all corporations because GE gets to skip out on the bill, realize that it is entirely your fault that this happened. What did you think was going on when Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE was making all of those appearances with and on behalf of Barack Obama anyhow? What would be the right thing to do, is to make a fair and equitable taxation system free from credits for certain government approved behaviors. We all should pay 15%, period. That would require a 1 sentence tax code.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Quite simply, the United Nations does not exist without the United States, and it is long past time to allow this vile, evil, pox on the world to exist. Every idealistic dream of creating that peaceful Utopian dreamworld of the liberal turns into a Dystopian nightmare. The United Nations stands as the single greatest reminder of the failure of any ideas of the political left to achieve any of their objectives through social engineering.

Let's recap a partial record of the United Nations. The aid to the Congolese turned into the U.N. establishing the world's largest brothel and human trafficking operation. The sanctions against the Iraqis became a huge money laundering operation which involved the relatives of the Secretary General who retired with over a Billion Dollars in Swiss bank accounts. UNICEF, which sees American Children panhandling every Halloween, us used entirely to fund Palestinian Terrorism and for weapons purchases. The U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon actually help Hezbollah in the rearmament effort for a continual war being waged on Israel's Northern Border. Genocides were cheerily ignored in the Sudan, in Serbia, in Lebanon, in Tibet, in Indonesia, and in Rhodesia. Honor Killings are a matter of the normal course of life in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Tunisia, and everywhere else the place is run by Muslims.

With all of that, plus a whole lot more that I am certain I missed, what is the United Nations up to now? Watch the video to find out.

As you consider the video, also consider a few other facts. The United States of America pays 25% of this evils budget every year. When a military force is sent, if that force has any teeth, it is mostly the United States which supplies it. Any aid actually rendered is supplied almost entirely by the U.S. We, as Americans do not need the U.N. to do the good things that we do. The U.N. does need the U.S. to project the evil that they do project. There is one political party in particular who wishes to outsource our national sovereignty to the U.N. for approval. That political party is the Democrat party. It is time to shut this evil down, and kick what is left over out of the United States.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

So yesterday, on his 936th day in office, President Obama, who has refocused his laser like attentions and efforts on jobs at least 15 times during his Presidency, has done so again. Let us peek at the first glimmerings of his bold plan to bring us out of our economic malaise. The plan, which is a State Secret right now, will be unveiled some time in September. The wonderful idea, a brand spanking new federal bureaucracy, is being dubbed the Department of Jobs. (I actually had to stop typing here, as I could not stop the giggles.) Putting aside for the moment the small fact that we already have a Department of Commerce and a Department of Labor, has anyone from team Obama seen fit to check on the efficacy of other federal Departments recently added to the already out of control public largess. Since the addition of the Department of Education, our public school systems have deteriorated in quality and shown an alarming drop in test scores, graduation rates, and world standing of ability of our student population. Since the creation of the Department of Energy, our domestic productive capability has dropped like the proverbial 16 ton weight employed in Monty Python sketches. I shudder to think of what the effects of a Department of Jobs would be upon our current fragile economic state.

I know that this is a stretch, but here is my bold prediction for what the Obama Economic Plan will be, when he unveils it in the upcoming months. First, I predict that the plan will be so wonderful that it will not be shown to us until his Presidency is past its 1000 day mark. When it is unleashed, it will consist of the aforementioned Department of Jobs, (brief laughing spell here,) another round of purposeful inflation consisting of QE whatever number we will happen to be on at the time, class warfare and wealth redistribution from America's taxpayers to America's chosen victim classes, heavy government subsidy for, "green jobs," allowing us to take full advantage of the mythical unicorn sector of our economy, and preparation for the impending Space Aliens.

Space aliens!? A fair question to be sure, but there is a story behind it. Whenever the left wishes to posit the meme that most economists agree with them, what they mean is that Paul Krugman agrees with them. Krugman is a Nobel Winner in the field of economics, but my personal opinion is that this fact merely serves to diminish the Nobel brand. Cases in point, former winners also include Yasser Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and my personal favorite, Barack Obama for things he might possibly accomplish. Krugman it seems believes that the theory of John Maynard Keynes could be interpreted to mean that we could solve our economic woes by preparing for a space alien invasion which of course will never happen. You have to see this to believe it.

Lord Keynes, for all of the discussion about his theory should in no way be equated with the modern day school of Keynesian Economics. The father of aggregate demand and macro economics never, in his wildest dreams advocated the kind of idiotic applications being undertaken in his name today. Keynes even professed deep regret for ever having discussed his theory with FDR, because FDR used the theory as an excuse to act in an irresponsible manner. The Keynesian Theory was that with very small increases in autonomous spending, aggregate demand and subsequently GDP would grow very quickly to produce tax revenues to pay off the deficits before they would become too large. Krugman makes some idiotic assertions which are unfortunately accepted as given fact in our national narrative. WWII did not bring us out of the Depression of the 30's. FDR's deficit spending did not speed up our recovery. Our economy in fact remained in very rough shape until the mid 1950's. Our top marginal tax rate in 1946 was over 90%, I have never heard a single liberal when faced with the overwhelming evidence of the failure of their policies who did not retort with the, "we just needed to do it bigger," response. Our $1 Trillion stimulus package for instance. It failed miserably to stimulate anything beyond our mounting debt. When presented with this evidence, Krugman et al, created a new labor statistic called saved jobs. When we didn't go for that idiocy, they came back with the claim that they argued for a larger spending bill, which if we had agreed to that, would certainly have saved us from our ills.

Now for the fun, here are two economists who have taken the time to dissect the ramblings of Paul Krugman. Yesterday, Paul Krugman gave us the number 5 argument on yesterday's list. He told us of the reasons why the success of Texas is actually a failure, and NRO took apart his analysis and did a masterful job of pointing out the dishonesty. Click the link to read the article.

What, indeed, does population growth have to do with job growth? Professor Krugman is half correct here — but intentionally only half correct: A booming population leads to growth in jobs. But there is another half to that equation: A booming economy, and the jobs that go with it, leads to population growth. Texas has added millions of people and millions of jobs in the past decade; New York, and many other struggling states, added virtually none of either. And it is not about the weather or other non-economic factors: People are not leaving California for Texas because Houston has a more pleasant climate (try it in August), or leaving New York because of the superior cultural amenities to be found in Nacogdoches and Lubbock. People are moving from the collapsing states into the expanding states because there is work to be had, and opportunity.

Houston, like Brooklyn and Boston, is a mixed bag: wealthy enclaves, immigrant communities rich and poor, students, government workers — your usual big urban confluence. In Harris County, the median household income is $50,577. In Brooklyn, it is $42,932, and in Suffolk County (which includes Boston and some nearby communities) it was $53,751. So, Boston has a median household income about 6 percent higher than Houston’s, while Brooklyn’s is about 15 percent lower than Houston’s.
Brooklyn is not the poorest part of New York, by a long shot (the Bronx is), and, looking at those income numbers above, you may think of something Professor Krugman mentions but does not really take properly into account: New York and Boston have a significantly higher cost of living than does Houston, or the rest of Texas. Even though Houston has a higher median income than does Brooklyn, and nearly equals that of Boston, comparing money wages does not tell us anything like the whole story: $50,000 a year in Houston is a very different thing from $50,000 a year in Boston or Brooklyn.
How different? Let’s look at the data: In spite of the fact that Texas did not have a housing crash like the rest of the country, housing remains quite inexpensive there. The typical owner-occupied home in Brooklyn costs well over a half-million dollars. In Suffolk County it’s nearly $400,000. In Houston? A whopping $130,100. Put another way: In Houston, the median household income is 39 percent of the cost of a typical house. In Brooklyn, the median household income is 8 percent of the cost of the median home, and in Boston it’s only 14 percent. When it comes to homeownership, $1 in earnings in Houston is worth a lot more than $1 in Brooklyn or Boston. But even that doesn’t really tell the story, because the typical house in Houston doesn’t look much like the typical house in Brooklyn: Some 64 percent of the homes in Houston are single-family units, i.e., houses. In Brooklyn, 85 percent are multi-family units, i.e. apartments and condos.

Thomas Sowell attacks another piece of Krugman's dishonesty.

The reason I call Krugman dishonest is because he, as a Nobel winning economist should know of the substantive omissions of relevant factors in the statistics he uses to make his case. Using household income rather than per capita income as a measuring stick is perhaps the most egregious of these purposeful errors.

There is no mystery to some very fast acting remedies we can utilize to get our economy going again. Put an end to the regulatory reign of terror being inflicted by the Obama White House. Roll back the damaging regulations passed into law prior to Obama's turn as President, (yes there were plenty of guilty parties prior the little Barry.) Stop the punitive taxation system which is currently designed to demotivate American businesses from growing and succeeding. Close off the system of tax credits and loopholes and subsidies which allows bureaucrats to pick winners and losers based on personal interests rather than those winners and losers being chosen by an objective free market system. (For everyone on the left who whines about GE not paying any taxes, the current system of tax credits for government approved behaviors and subsidy for the green economy fiasco is the perfect example of this.) Stop the government's wealth redistribution scheme. This has always had the exact opposite effect from what it was intended to do, and actually harmed the very victim classes which the left claims to care so passionately about anyhow.

Monday, August 15, 2011

These are the predictions of anti-Perry talking points which will soon be published in major news sources throughout the country. Get ready for them, and remember that the will be mostly lies and falsehoods. After all, why should anyone be bothered with trite little things like the truth or actual facts. In as much as I would love to reprint the entire article here, I have not been given, nor asked for permission to do so. I would suggest clicking the link above and reading the article, as it is a well written piece. I t not only predicts the regurgitation of the Perry is bad meme we will all be pounded with in the coming months, but it does an excellent job of rebutting the soon to be arriving keen and penetrating analysis we will soon be treated to. I'll reprint the 17 talking points, just so we can all keep score as to which predictions actually do come true.

1. GardasilGardasil is a drug developed by Merck & Co.. It is supposed to prevent cervical cancer caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it in June of 2006 and subsequently recommended vaccination in females aged 11 and 12, before they become sexual active. Since it is not effective against an existing infection, it must be given before a sexually-transmitted HPV infection occurs.2. Trans-Texas CorridorThe “Trans-Texas Corridor” (TTC) term identifies a plan, introduced by Governor Perry in 2001, that some saw as the beginning of a “North American Union” highway system. It was to extend from the Texas border with Mexico to the border with Oklahoma and would be a 4,000 mile system with routes crisscrossing Texas. The $175+ billion dollar project would have been the largest engineering project ever proposed for the state of Texas.3. He used to be a Democrat and was Al Gore’s campaign manager in TexasBoth statements are true. Perry was raised in a Democrat family where his father was a long-serving Democrat county commissioner. It was natural for him to start his political career as a Democrat. He won his first election in 1984 when he was elected to the Texas house and soon became a rising star in Texas democrat politics. An opportunity to advance himself presented itself and he became Gore’s Texas campaign manager in 1988.4. He wants Texas to secede from the union
Some say that Perry wants Texas to secede from the Union and he is a traitor for saying so. The governor never said that he wanted Texas to secede. Scholars know that Texas secession is an urban myth and certainly, the governor knows it as well.5. The jobs created in Texas have all been low paying jobs. Texas’ average wage is much lower than the national average.That statement would imply that Texans are working for minimum wage and must be living at poverty levels compared to other states. 6. Texas ranks poorly in educational spending and high school graduationsThat statement is true. Texas does rank near the bottom of generalized rankings in spending per student and high school graduations, but as usual, those rankings alone are misleading. The statement is intended to imply that the state does a poor job of educating its students and therefore its Governor, Rick Perry is to blame. It’s just another two-for-one Texas/Perry smear.7. Perry turned down $555 million in federal stimulus, yet later asked for federal disaster aid for Texas wildfires
That’s true. The reason that Perry gave for refusing that particular “stimulus” was that it was a one-time, temporary influx of money to assist in covering extended unemployment benefits, but had strings attached (the most serious was that the funding would only last about two years). After that, the state would have to find a way to continue the higher payments covered by the federal funding. In other words, it was a one-time, kick-the-can-down-the-road temporary funding that didn’t permanently fix anything and would leave Texas liable for replacing the $555 million when the federal money ran out. Instead Perry got a federal loan to cover the state’s unemployment fund shortfall. While a loan still must be repaid, it didn’t come with the extra burden of federal mandates that accompanied the $555 million stimulus funding. Thus, he avoided the federal meddling that was part of the original stimulus while still shoring up the state’s unemployment fund.8. Perry says he has not raised taxes, but he has
When Perry states that “we don’t raise taxes.” That’s such a broad generalization that it can’t possibly be 100% factual. And it is not. Perry has raised about half a dozen taxes during his tenure, including three 2006 changes that helped cover reductions in school property taxes, being essentially revenue neutral. He also signed into law tax increases on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, fireworks, and diesel equipment. He also implemented a change to the business franchise tax law that increased the franchise tax that businesses pay to operate in Texas – that was an actual business tax increase.9. Perry has presided over the highest number of executions in the nation
Be aware that I used the term “presided over” because that’s the way that several critical comments characterized Perry’s position. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perry did not “preside” over the trials, nor the jury’s decisions, nor did he act as judge. He did not preside over the multitude of appeals that are common in capital cases and he was not part of court decisions that denied a new trial. He was simply in office when these events occurred. He could issue a one-time thirty-day reprieve otherwise, short of a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, his only option was to grant the reprieve or allow the execution to proceed. That’s it.10. Perry refused to consider commuting the execution of Mexican national Humberto Leal Garcia even though it had been requested by the U.N. and the White House
Humberto Leal Garcia was sentenced to death for the 1994 rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl. Leal, a mechanic, was born in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico, in 1973 and moved to the USA when he was two years old, but never became a United States citizen. He was an illegal immigrant.11. Cameron Todd Willingham – was he an innocent man?This is a troubling case. Willingham was executed by lethal injection in 2004 after being convicted of setting a fire that killed his three daughters before Christmas 1991. But his case and the ensuing controversy frame the death penalty in a new way: whether Perry used his power as governor to try to dodge responsibility for presiding over the execution of a potentially innocent man. Again, that term “presiding” – a term specifically designed to make it appear that he had more responsibility in the execution than is true.12. Perry supports giving in-state tuition to illegals
This is true. Perry signed the bill six years ago. Under the law, any student who has lived in Texas at least three years and graduated from a Texas high school qualifies for in-state tuition. The law also requires noncitizens to apply for citizenship. “I’m for leaving the law like it is because I think it serves a good purpose,” Perry said. Texas was one of the first states to pass an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants. Ten states currently have such laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. About 3,800 children of immigrants got in-state tuition in 2004, less than 1 percent of students in Texas colleges and universities.13. Rick Perry is gayA story by Politico predicts that if Texas governor Rick Perry runs for president, he will again have to deal with unproven rumors that he’s gay. Meanwhile, the story itself is helping spread the rumors once more.14. Perry is a “weak” Governor (the Governor of a state that limits the Governor’s powers)
This is true – but doesn’t tell the full story. Texas does limit the governor’s powers as compared to many other states, but to conclude that the governor is merely a figurehead, with little power or influence, is simply wrong. Once again, critics are trying to diminish Perry’s achievements by denigrating his part in Texas’ successes, as if his participation as governor was inconsequential.15. He is squishy on immigration
There is some truth in that. His stance against Texas adopting an Arizona-style immigration law was initially troubling to many conservatives even though his point was that it would be better to force the federal government to enforce the border since that is one of their primary responsibilities. A true statement, but one easier said than done.16. Perry is a member of the Bilderberg cabal and therefore believes in a New World Order (NWO). That is reason alone to eliminate him from voting consideration.Governor Perry did attend a Bilderberg meeting in June, 2007, and now some say (mostly Ron Paul supporters) that he is their hand-picked candidate for the job of POTUS in 2012. Since attending four years ago, his detractors would have us believe that he’s been studying his Bilderberg bible, taking classes in New World Governing, and polishing his Illuminati lapel pin. Does this mean that the Bilderbergers are ready to dump President Obama (who they also supposedly put in office) in favor of Rick Perry?17. Texas’ abysmal rankings on various listsThese rankings were selected by critics for one purpose, and that is to smear Texas and by association, Rick Perry.

Facts are considered to be mere annoyances to the political left. These smears will be made, misleading as they all are. Each one of these 17 smears has a far different reality than what will be published. When the time comes, and the smear spread around, we will publish the rebuttal and reference the prediction back to this posting. A score card if you will to chronicle the dishonesty of the left. We have about 15 months, and 17 smears, time to play predict the Soros talking points.

Extra Credit Prediction: The Perry is gay thing will be the October surprise bomb dropped by the Democrats in the last two weeks prior to the election. It has all of the ear marks of the left's tactics. It is vicious, impossible to disprove or prove for that matter, superficial, and impossible to counter in the closing days before an election.

Hat tip to Eliana at The Blogmocracy.

UPDATE: Well, that didn't take too long at all. On the first day of this post, Gardisil came up as a gotcha question for Perry in New Hampshire. Perry's response was that his decision was a mistake, and that the checks and balances system put into place in Texas corrected his mistake, IE the State Legislature failed to follow his folly.

His third question from the crowd was about an issue that his critics have touched on — his 2007 mandate for girls to get vaccinated against the cervical cancer-causing HPV virus.

“I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” he said. “I hate cancer. Let me tell you, as a son who has a mother and father who are both cancer survivors.”

Perry said he’d invested government resources in cancer cures, adding, “I hate cancer. And this HPV, we were seeing young ladies die at the early age. What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did.”

UPDATE II: Yesterday late, we hit number 5 on the list via Paul Krugman, who also advocated for defense against a pending space alien invasion as a means to bring us out of our economic malaise. I wish I were joking, as Krugman is an economist that people actually listen to, but alas, I am not. For those keeping score, that is 2 out of 17 on day number one, which is well ahead of the pace I though they would hold.

About Me

As a graduate of The Ohio State University, I began working as an Assistant Manager in a Woolworth store in 1986. After spending 19 years in retail management, I decided to change my life. I transitioned into the Financial Services industry. I currently work as a Financial Planner with my own firm in Rocky River, Ohio. Along the way I managed to collect 4 children and two ex-wives. My political views started out on the left, but as time went on, and I realized that consequences mattered, I gradually became more conservative.
On another note, as I am brand spanking new to this blogging thing, please feel free to leave comments as to how I can improve in any comment thread. Thank you for your help.